Sunday, January 31, 2010

In just a few paragraphs, I'm going to tell you something that will, if you are a demographically typical American, extend your healthy life span significantly. Moreover, what I'm going to recommend that you do is essentially free. On top of that, top researchers report it will make you feel better within a few weeks.

Get richer. Live longer. Feel better. Impossible, right? Obviously, some joke or a scam that slipped past your spam catcher. On the contrary, I'm entirely serious and I can site a preponderance of peer-reviewed science from the most prestigious scientific journals to prove it. Within a few years, this information will be common knowledge. Very few people know about it today however.

My purpose for telling you about this scientific breakthrough is not simply to impart the benefits of this new research. It is to make a much more important point. That point is this: the biotech sciences have been leading the discovery race for years now and almost nobody has noticed.

You probably know about 3D television and the newest whiz-bang smart phones. You may know about private orbital launchers and new toys that let kids control objects just by thinking. Virtually no one outside the biological sciences, however, knows about the astonishing biotech progress that has gone on "under the radar."

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that the mainstream media is patently incapable of grasping or reporting complex scientific subjects. This was the case even before major news organizations began slashing news staffs. Moreover, many biotech stories are so technical in their details that few journalists have the background or patience to actually dig in and understand them.

My biologist wife's theory, incidentally, is that biotech breakthroughs just don't make great theater. This is especially true when compared to developments in physics and computer sciences.

You know that IT continues to accelerate. You can touch and hold new computers in your hands. You've personally seen the dramatic improvements in Internet performance and the resultant explosions in social media like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Similarly, big physics experiments make big headlines. They require huge budgets and enormous structures, like the Large Hadron Collider.

Biotech advances, however, typically take place in relatively small laboratories. The experiments themselves produce results that can only be observed on a microscopic or sub-microscopic level, and they are measured using the language of careful obtuse statistical analysis. Nevertheless, my message today is that biotech is where the really big breakthroughs and profits will take place in the next few years. Moreover, these advances will ultimately change the world in ways that dwarf the direct impact of computers and the Internet.

So now, I'm going to give you an overview of some of the truly remarkable breakthroughs in biotech, as John Mauldin has asked me to do. First, however, I'll tell you how to live longer, get richer and feel better, as promised.

It is this: Optimal vitamin D serum blood levels, attained through sunlight or supplementation, dramatically reduce the risk of most serious diseases by an astonishing 50 to 80 percent. These diseases include osteoporosis, osteomalacia, hypertension and a range of cancers from breast and colon to deadly melanoma skin cancers.

Yes, that's right. The risk of contracting the really nasty skin cancers can be dramatically lowered by getting moderate, sensible sunshine or through vitamin D supplementation. Non-melanoma skin cancers do increase somewhat with sun exposure, especially with sun burns but they are relatively benign and are easily detected and removed.

This is not the end of the list, though. The big killers and most expensive diseases respond similarly to adequate D. I'm talking about cardiovascular disease and stroke. So do type 1 diabetes, type 2 to a lesser extent, rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, autoimmune diseases and apparently even viral diseases such as H1N1 and AIDs. I emphases that some of these diseases are not "cured" by sufficient D as some bone diseases are. The risk of developing other diseases and the severity of their symptoms if you do is much lower, however, if you are not vitamin D deficient.

There is, by the way, no simple prescription in terms of sunlight exposure or vitamin D supplementation because age, skin color, body weight and even location play huge factors in your circulating blood levels, which should be at least 40 ng/ml of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Ideally, you should consult a physician who can prescribe blood tests to see where your D levels are.

This information is not new but the odds are that you are unaware of it unless you read the New England Journal of Medicine or other scientific publications. I'll include links at the end of this article for you to investigate this matter further, including the NEJM paper I just referred to.

This new consensus regarding vitamin D must be viewed as a sign of the biotech revolution on the horizon. Just as new IT and nanotech sensing technologies have shed light on the function of vitamin D, they are leading scientists to entirely unexpected discoveries in other areas as well. More importantly, these discoveries, unlike sunshine, can be patented. You, therefore, can invest in the companies that own the IP and reap transformational profits.

Some of the contributing technologies include supercomputing, without which the human genome could not have been decoded. We now know, by the way, that the activity of about 2000 human genes is moderated by vitamin D. Supercomputing has also enabled an entire new means of biological experimentation called in silico. Simply put, in silico experimentation uses 3D computer models of organic molecules. These models, existing in virtual reality environments, can be manipulated at incredibly high speeds to quickly yield results that once would have taken decades in physical labs.

Incidentally, the reason that I can confidently say that the vitamin D information will make most people wealthier is simply this. Personal wealth is directly correlated to age. As an investor, I can assume that you understand exponential growth. You know, therefore, that diversified portfolios grow faster over time. Every additional year that you live will see, statistically speaking, an increasingly rapid rate of wealth accumulation.

I believe, based on discussions with top scientists, that the impact of attaining optimal vitamin D blood levels for the vast majority of people, whose serum D levels are insufficient, will be an increase in average healthy life spans of 5 to 8 years. This is pretty breathtaking news, frankly, but you have to view it as just one manifestation of accelerating scientific discovery.

Average lifespans have been increasing steadily for hundreds of years but have recently begun to accelerate noticeably. This trend will continue to increase as proven biotechnologies, now in the developmental stage, come to market. These biotechnologies include RNA interference, nanotech biosensors, personalized medicine, nanotech viricides and stem cell technologies among others. Non-medical biotechnologies will not directly impact lifespans but they will create enormous wealth. Notably, I'm talking about cellular engineering.

There is still work to do in all these areas but the science behind them is solid. When they come to market, which will be sooner than almost anyone expects, they will create enormous wealth for those with the foresight to invest in them before the general public has caught on.

Think, for example, back to the birthing days of the computer and software industries. Remember when virtually everybody considered personal computers expensive toys that would never really catch on? Do you remember when financial gurus were saying the Internet was a fad and that e-commerce would never be more than a novelty? This year, by the way, Amazon.com sold more e-books than paper books.

When those technologies were ramping up, it was possible to buy a diversified mix of the best players at bargain prices. When the technology proved itself, people who held such portfolios made immense fortunes despite the fact that many of the original companies failed. You can own a bunch of losers but still makes thousands of percent returns if your portfolio included the big winners like Intel, Apple and Microsoft.

As people catch on to the potential of these new biotechnologies, we will see similar bubbles. John Mauldin, in fact, has predicted just that. Now, therefore, is the time to begin building a diversified portfolio of the most promising transformational biotechs. So just what biotechnologies are we talking about?

Regenerative Medicine

This is numero uno; stem cell technologies. They may not be first to market, but the technology's potential is unparalleled in history for reasons I'll explain. Other huge transformational technologies may treat and prevent currently incurable diseases before regenerative medicine matures. Stem cells, however, are unique in their ability to rejuvenate the human biology. I'm not, by the way, talking about obsolete embryonic stem cells (eSCs). Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific action has moved far beyond eSCs to several other forms of stem cells.

Unless you are reading scientific publications, however, you probably wouldn't know this. In fact, the scientific literature itself is usually outdated because leading stem cell scientists are not working in academia with its "publish or perish" pressures. The last thing that scientists in start-ups and small caps want to do is give away the inside information about their innovations. As a result, almost none of the real breakthrough news in stem cell or other cutting edge science makes it to the mainstream or financial medias. Let me prove my point with a pop quiz.

Q: How long will it be before scientists can duplicate the army of clones scenario that George Lucas portrayed in Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones. In other words, when will scientists be able to swab the inside of your mouth, take a single cell and turn it into an unlimited horde of healthy babies, each with your identical DNA?

A: If you said "several years ago," you are right. This is routine, well-established science at this point. We don't believe anybody has actually used this ability with humans yet, for obvious ethical reasons. Scientists, however, have taken adult skin cells from mice and transformed them into a new kind of stem cell called an induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Those iPS cells have, in turn, been allowed to develop into healthy adult mice.

As dramatic as this ability is, it is not particularly useful outside of agriculture where the technology will be used to produce perfect livestock. The real promise of iPS cells is "potentiation" for specific medical needs. What I'm talking about is taking an iPS cell, which is fundamentally identical to an embryonic stem cell, and programming it to repair aged or damage tissues.

Potentiated iPS cells could be be grown, using your own cells, that would rejuvenate your heart muscles, one of the muscle tissues that cannot regenerate on its own. These cells could be programmed to become fresh cartilage, another cell type that doesn't regenerate, thus giving the aged and arthritis sufferers youthful pain-free joints.

We're looking at non-surgical organ replacement, one cell at a time. An injection or series of injections of these potentiated stem cells would, for example, transform an aged, damaged liver into a healthy youthful organ.

Someone suffering from severe diabetes could get off-the-shelf islet cells that produce insulin, saving their lives and allowing them to live normal lives. People who are blind due to macular degeneration could see again. You name it, these extraordinary cells will do it. In fact, they did do it. Every cell in your body, cartilage, kidney, heart, skin and bones, started out as a stem cell.

So let's have another quiz.

Q: How long will it be before the programming code for cartilage stem cells is cracked.

A: Once again, the answer is that it has already happened. Top private industry scientists have decoded the secrets of hundreds of cell types and are experimenting now with cartilage, nerve and other cell types. Human tests, probably offshore because of the FDA's snail pace, will begin if not this year, then next year. These therapies will be offered initially outside the United States. Many of us believe that, once Americans begin coming back home healed of conditions previously thought incurable, the FDA will bow to public demand. Regenerative medicine will inevitably be fast-tracked.

(Note: there will be lots of scams offering all sorts of purported stem cell therapies offshore offering "cures" for all sorts of diseases. Don't buy them or subject yourself to them. The legitimate players will surface over time, associated with real hospitals and researchers.)

There is one final aspect to the regenerative medicine picture that makes it especially attractive to long-term investors. Let me tell you a story to make this point.

Last year, I was in Canada speaking at a financial conference about emerging biotechnologies. I was privileged to share the forum with Harvard futurist, best-selling author and venture capitalist, Juan Enriquez. Enriquez is a major force in cellular engineering, working closely with the genius ex-surfer Craig Venter who cracked the human genome for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time that the US government had allotted. President Clinton, in fact, issued an emergency executive order denying Venter IP rights to the genome he had decoded.

Today, Venter is applying his genetic genius to the other end of DNA complexity. He is developing the tools to reprogram the genetically simplest life: microorganisms. Venter compares DNA to computer code and scientists following his work say he will create the first artificial life form, probably this year. It will be, in fact, a designer bacteria. More importantly, his next step is engineer algae that secrete high-grade hydrocarbons that can be refined into transportation fuels. ExxonMobil believes him and gave Venter's research firm $300 million to work on the project.

Anyway, I asked Venter's associate, the venture capitalist Enriquez, why his biotech funds weren't invested in stem cells. His answer was straightforward. He said that the IP was already tied up. This is an astonishing fact. The intellectual property, the patents, for this phenomenal rejuvenative technology is already applied for or awarded.

The IP structure of regenerative medicine is unlike most other pharmaceutical or biotech industries, including cellular engineering. Traditional drug discovery, in fact, consists largely of identifying which of many molecules can do a certain thing. Frequently, only a small percentage of possible candidates are identified and then, through an elimination process, one is identified for testing and approval.

Cellular engineering is more dramatic but the potential number of new biofuel-producing algae is theoretically unlimited. Anyone who creates a new breed of algae can patent only that microorganism.

This is not the case with stem cells. There are very few "pluripotent" stem cell types that can become all the other cells. Already, the means of producing these cells and, in many cases, the cells themselves have been patented or applied for.

To invest in algae biofuels, which I probably will do, I will have to pick the most likely winners from a field of players to guarantee owning the big transformational winners. This is possible but it is much riskier than the stem cell space. This is because the number of companies that hold the bulk of the really valuable IP and patent applications can be counted on one hand. If big pharma wants into the regenerative medicine business, and they will, they're going to have to pay these tiny small caps for the right. This reduces the risk of buying losers enormously.

RNA Interference

There are many standalone breakthroughs in biotech and I'll mention a few in a bit. First, I want to tell you about the other big biotechnology industry, RNA interference. RNAi is a perfect fit with regenerative medicine, which has the power to restore damaged and aged tissues but does not attack the causes of diseases. This is where RNA interference fits in.

This field is actually younger even than stem cell sciences. The scientific paper that broke open the field was published in 1998 and the Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to its authors in just four years ago in 2006. RNAi had one major advantage over regenerative medicine, however. It was not effected by the political and moral controversies that regenerative medicine faced before it moved past embryonic stem cells. As a result, researchers have had no trouble getting government and private funding.

Here is the overview. Our DNA is, in effect, locked and protected in a cellular clean room without a door. DNA communicates with the rest of the body by sending out messages with orders to turn genes on or off. Those messages are RNA, or ribonucleic acid. Therefore, the right RNA sequence can be introduced to the body to mimic those messages, which are then identified as invaders. The provokes the body to treat certain of its own RNA messages as invaders and destroy them.

This is RNA interference and it provides the ability to control any of the genes in our body and the proteins they produce. Those proteins, in turn, are the key to most human diseases. RNAi can both increase and decrease these proteins, providing cures for innumerable diseases. The companies that own those therapies will, in turn, become new pharm giants or they will be acquired by existing pharma.

RNAi researchers are working on drugs that could reduce production of bad cholesterol or increase production of the good form. RNAi could be used to turn off the gene that allows cancers to develop capillary networks. Similarly, it has been demonstrated to turn off the gene that provokes the excess blood delivery that causes wet macular degeneration. It could moderate the ability of the body to store fat or increase muscle mass. In could turn off hypertension or insulin resistance as well as neoplasias such as tumors, infections, and neurodegenerative disorders like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Disease.

For the first time, science is looking not to treat symptoms, but to actually stop the gene functions that cause diseases. This is truly a revolution. The challenge to this remarkably young science now is the actual delivery of RNAi drugs to cells. We know they work in the lab but RNA molecules are large and fragile, so they don't penetrate cellular membranes under normal circumstances. Additionally, the body tends to clear itself of RNAi drugs through the kidneys or inside the cell itself. Nuclease, which exists inside the cell, also breaks down RNA.

For this reason, a number of delivery mechanisms are being developed to safely transport the RNA as a payload. A handful of small companies with superb talent and IP are racing to perfect their own varying solutions. Each has a different approach to solving the delivery problem but all have demonstrated efficacy. At this point, we don't know which will yield the big solutions. It appears increasingly likely, however, that different platforms will be best suited for different RNAi applications. Each has huge profit potential. RNAi drugs are in trials and big pharm has already snapped up one small cap player.

The Nanotech/IT/Biotech Convergence

I've already mentioned cellular engineering. Craig Venter calls cells hardware and DNA software. He treats DNA like the ones and zeroes in current software. The same IT/biotech convergence is also evident in new in silico experimentation.

Nanotechnologies are contributing indirectly to the explosion in biotech innovation indirectly through new lithographic chip fabrication techniques that increase computer speed and power. The decoding of the stem cell potentiation process relies on this power and would have been impossible only ten years ago. Nanotechnologies are also directly impacting a whole range of biotech applications by allowing increasingly smaller interventions.

I read very recently an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by a writer and research at Ethics and Public Policy Center. In it, he basically declares Richard Feynman's original vision of nanotechnologies a bust. He obviously isn't reading my newsletter because we are currently seeing animal tests of new medicines that combing nanotech polymer structures with biological parts in ways that trick and attack viruses. Already on the market are nanotech sensing systems using submicrosopic biological components married to metal molecules that provide nearly instantaneous diagnoses of a rapidly expanding range of pathogens.

These sensors are going to power an even larger revolution in personalized medicine. For those unfamiliar with the concept, allow me to explain.

Currently, medicine is, to a large degree, a "one size fits all" proposition. Doctors watch for adverse effects and check personal and family histories. Medical technologies, however, are designed for the general population, not individuals.

That's going to change.

We know that many current treatments work on some people, yet not others. Some drugs are safe for many people, but have dangerous side effects for others. Some are just the opposite. This is because all of us have individual differences in our genetic code based on heredity and environment. Even slight differences can lead to very different reactions to medications.

This has created serious regulatory problems. Drugs are denied regulatory approval not because they do not work, but because some fraction of the population suffers adverse effects. As a result, patients are often denied incredibly effective therapies simply because they are not universally effective.

This shockingly primitive state of affairs exists because, until very lately, we simply have not had the tools to get to the genetic roots of disease. Scientists and pharmaceutical companies haven't precisely known how a particular drug's chemical profile interacts with a genetic one. Medical science, in turn, has been unable to tailor drugs to work with a specific genetic makeup. That is rapidly changing.

The Impact of the Genome

With the mapping of the genome, scientists can now identify single genes and their individual expressions. Nanotech biosensors can identify genetic characteristics in individuals so that individual reactions to drugs can be known before they are taken. It is meaningful, from the investor's perspective, that Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, now heads the National Institutes of Health. Collins has long been a prominent champion for using the knowledge gained from human genome to accelerate personalized medicine.

Collins has also stated that genomics is currently where the computer industry was back in the 1970s - at the beginning of a technological revolution. While he was speaking in scientific terms, we should remember that the '70s was also the right time to begin investing in a diversified portfolio of breakthrough computer technologies.

I believe this is true across the board for a range of revolutionary biotechnologies. I also like to remind readers that important innovations traditionally do not slow down during economic turn downs. The Great Depression, in fact, is considered by many to be one of the most important periods in the history of innovation.

What I'm hearing now, talking to people who range from Nobel Prize winners to CEOs of biotech start-ups and small caps, is that the world is going to change very soon in ways that no one is prepared for. Our lives are going to be significantly better and longer.

I also like to point out that private investors will not only profit from this revolution, they will power it. This is especially meaningful because one of the most dramatic impacts of these new technologies is longer life spans. By investing in regenerative medicine and other important biotechnologies, you are helping extend your own life. Traditionally, financial analysts have always told us that we should invest more conservatively as we age, with less of our portfolio in speculative higher-risk stocks.

For the first time in history, I believe this is exactly the wrong advice. You don't know how long you are going to live and, with these new therapies, it could be much longer than you've been led to believe. By investing as a younger person, you might actually make it so.

One last thing, here is the link regarding vitamin D that I promised.

http://www.vitamindhealth.org/

John back: Patrick is clearly enthusiastic about the potential for biotech. But that is because he is talking to the guys who are making it happen. He has been introducing them to me over the past year. They have been in my home or we have met on the road. And I have to admit, that enthusiasm is contagious. There is a deep reality here. I am fully cognizant that it will not happen the way we envision, but something large - very large - is on its way. Again, if you are interested in the letter, you can find out more information here.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

EeKs Stair Ugh. For the record, I prefer flowers over cock shots. Especially when we don't even have the same cell phone carrier. That's just rude- it's like a peep show by entrapment.

Cryštof Čen gets it.

Philip Michael Pizano Your just jealous you cant put one out there!

EeKs Stair Oh. I could. I'm creative.

Philip Michael Pizano I just grossed myself out with that thought

EeKs Stair You sat next to me in religion class. I can't believe you never noticed...

Shan Stair Bushong Wow...who still does that at your age???

Philip Michael Pizano No...I was behind...and now I know why I prefered that view. And the pony tail thing.

EeKs Stair behind so you could cheat...and pull my pony tail. Lots of people do that at my age, Shannon.

Philip Michael Pizano I never cheated! I was making sure you had the right answers...your welcome by the way

.EeKs Stair haha. Well thank you for that, then. :)

Shan Stair Bushong But then again...a lot of people do stuff at our age that they shouldn't....

EeKs Stair Yah. People still wipe the wrong way ffs.

Robert Dunne Duly noted

Ernest Meadows definately no comment

Carolyn Hayer Haha agreed! BTW, LOTS of people...

Elwin Sherman I don't have a clue what's going on here, but I want in

.EeKs Stair me neither. I never have, really.

Ernest Meadows also.. which kind of flowers... you know for future reference

EeKs Stair TIGER LILLIES. I have a big tattoo on my back ( Okay- trampstamp yada yada...) of 2 tiger lillies and ...well stuff in between) I love those flowers. I got it the night before a med school final. I was sick of studying "death and diseases" and decided to bomb the exam to get something "permanent." Yah. that's me. It turned out great though- kudos to Erica, the artist.

Ernest Meadows uhmm yeah that bring to mind that one night at the diner... completely hilarious

EeKs Stair huh? What happened?

Arthur Imparato hey I'm the old guy in the room...what is a "cock shots"?

EeKs Stair Um, it's basically when a guy takes a picture of his penis with his cell phone and then sends it to you...with hopes of getting the receiver excited, I assume. Happens often during "Sexting."

Arthur Imparato oh me oh my...thanks for the 411 (you have seen "Modern Family", if not it is worth the watch) ...back in the day we sent flowers...what dorks we were...

EeKs Stair back in the day...it was better.

Arthur Imparato is there an app to block c*ck shots?

EeKs Stair Um. Most likely. I guess I didn't have to look...but....that's hard.

Arthur Imparato where is this world heading (no pun intended)?

EeKs Stair haha. Up shit's crick without a paddle. You went to Beverly Hills High? So do you watch 90210?

Wendy Gayle March NICE!

Arthur Imparato I graduated BHS in 1972 and I have seen BH 90210, but not the most recent series. Why do young people choose to be so crude with one another?

Is it like "Lord of the Flies" with MTV on your iPhone?

EeKs Stair Where to start, Arthur. I think it all goes back to the birth control pill. But that's for a different status update.

Arthur Imparato Thanks for the info. You are kind.

PS: I was a hippy and we invented free love. IMO, perhaps some young people have confused love and sex?

Shan Stair Bushong There was recently a story in the news about some idiot highschoolers "sexting" each other....the legal system was trying to get them nailed (no pun intended) for pornography.... Whatever happened to having your parents drop you off at the mall or movie theatre...so you could meet your date and go watch a G rated movie...maybe share some popcorn.....get home by 9pm.... Those days have gone to smut..

EeKs Stair I think love gets confused with a lot of things. But no matter what those things are, people like to call them love- much more settling on the stomach that way.

EeKs Stair Men can't confuse love. Women do it allll the time. lol

EeKs Stair Um, Shannon,....if mom knew we were at a movie theatre with a guy watching All Dogs Go to Heaven, she'd march in there and pull us out by our hair. I don't remember those days you speak of.

Arthur Imparato You can't confuse love. It is really simple and obvious. It is always selfless.

Fracking is cool too, but gets boring pretty quick. Sex is so over rated. IMO, women do it for emotional connect and men to it to come.

Men are dicks. Women aren't.

EeKs Stair Haven't you heard of cock jugglers? Women do it to cum these days too. That's why it's interesting to watch the dynamic between sexes evolve..., especially in an urban setting. A woman can easily hook up and walk away from it and want nothing more but the physical release- a behavior that was predominantly seen in males in generations prior.

26 minutes ago · EeKs Stair ha! well I can tell in a minute. :)25 minutes agoArthur Imparato is this speed dating?24 minutes ago · EeKs Stair No. But if I don't like someone, I don't stay around. What's the point of that?23 minutes agoArthur Imparato tru dat

23 minutes ago · Arthur Imparato are studying to be a doctor as well?22 minutes ago · Ernest Lupinacci if men so "that's so interesting..." when are addled brains were thinking "that's so weird..." our lives would be so much more satisfying...18 minutes agoEeKs Stair Yah- all nerds in my family.17 minutes agoEeKs Stair True that, Ernest.16 minutes agoArthur Imparato it is 2010 and i do believe the sexes are equal from here forth11 minutes ago · EeKs Stair well if you don't want to do the nanny route or daycare, someone has to stay home with the munchkins. And he's a MUCH better cook and baker than her. God, I love when he cooks for me. Yummy.9 minutes agoArthur Imparato I cook, do all the laundry for me and the wife, shopping as well. The only thing I don't do is sewing...not very good at that.7 minutes ago · EeKs Stair You're a good man then! ;)5 minutes agoArthur Imparato no, not really. but I am a good person, or at least I can fantasies.

Five Supreme Court justices today announced that not only are corporations people and that their money is free speech – this is old hat and a very ugly hat at that – but now, there should be no limit to the money they spend to influence political outcomes. This would be one thing if corporations really were “democratic associations” of humans that the Founding Fathers may have wanted to protect.

They are, instead, small oligarchies of top management. Thus, the top management of major oil and coal companies can decide what political outcomes they want to promote, say, unlimited production of carbon dioxide (none of their CEOs apparently has grandchildren!), utterly without any approval of their decisions by the millions of actual owners.

The financial power of corporations was already in danger of overwhelming the democratic process in Congress and this makes the damage potentially unlimited and puts the Court’s seal of approval on it. So let’s do it in style and have a name change. The U.C.A. has a familiar look: The United Corporations of America!

Barry Ritholtz: Hey look, I know we are in a *deflationary environment, but this is getting pretty ridiculous:

The Sylvania Blu-ray Disc Player (NB530SLX) in full 1080p, originally listed at $199.99 is now $89.99 at Amazon.

I know nothing about this machine, other than the reviews I read (which are pretty good), or who makes it for Sylvania. I am sure there are better, more expensive machines.

But $90? Jeez, that is practically free.

arthur.i Says:

I have to agree with a few of the comments above – $90.00 is not free when two billion people live on less than two dollars a day. The price of this blue-ray player would feed a family of 4 for a month in many places around the world. Mr. Ritholtz it is nice to be wealthy, no doubt you deserve and have earned your position in our society. Let us all try to remember that we are the lucky ones.

I only download my media. Films, TV shows, News, Music, Books Magazine, Newspapers. Everything. It is so convenient, easy and takes up no shelf space. Once you start your digital library you will never go back to the old school hard hardware world.

Sony is having a rough time of it. They finally win the the high def war and feel good about erasing some of the shame from the decades old betamax/VHS defeat and poof the market moves to a place where they are not.

In Japan (I watch a lot of NHK TV in English, streaming video) there is a national pastime called Kingyo Sukui. It is a festival game that mixes gambling and pet shopping with a little bit of fishing too. You have a bowl and small scoop which is made of very thin paper. The object is to scoop the goldfish out of the tub and into a bowl without breaking the paper. There are masters of this ’sport’ who can scoop up a tiny goldfish in seconds. The secret is to place the thin delicate rice paper in front of the fish and let it swim onto it and at that moment gently pick up the little creature. Most people logically chase the fish from behind which makes the fish scurry away and then it becomes very difficult to catch. To succeed at this one must anticipate where the fish is going to go and be there at the moment it does.

Friday, January 29, 2010

I am not sure why but something about this ipad seems wrong. Why would I carry it around? I still would need my mobile phone and most likely my laptop. The kindle reader is great to read books but I don’t carry it with me where ever I go. When I leave the house everyday I put a tiny little cell phone in my pocket and with that I am in touch with my world completely. It weighs 30 grams maybe. I don’t take my laptop with me everywhere. Why would I? It is too big and I don’t really need it at the supermarket or my dentists office. Cell phone yes, laptop no.

If Apple stumbles on this one, what would it do to their bottom line and more importantly their stock price. How much of ipad success is baked into APPL @$200? I have no idea how to figure this out.

Mike in Nola Says:

Pogue’s piece is written like a true fanboi: “keep the faith til it comes out; Steve will lead you to salvation in the end.”

Of course there will be plenty of fanbois who will line up around the block to buy it when it comes out. They’ll buy anytthing Steve tells them to. I’m sure this will cost my brother in law $1k for the so called maxipad with the accessories, many of which are extra. But it will keep his college-age daughter from whining. Will it sell beyond the base? Doubt it. People forget that even Steve has had some flops, like the ipod high fi and Apple TV.

It’s not a reasonably necessary item like a phone, or a relavitively cheap item like an ipod or even a touch. It’s not even a new type of item. There have been Windows tablets for almost a decade and there are new, slicker ones coming out. There Android tablets. There’s kindle software that wil run on Windows XP thru Wn7 and even Linux. and most mobile device, including the iphone. The kindle software does color already. And you can read while your email, twitter, messenger and whatever else you want is running in the background. No multitasking yet for the iphone OS, although I suspect it’ll be forced upon the ipad by competition.

But it does have that great Apple innovation for mobile devices: cut and paste

I don’t understand why anyone reads Pogue, he sounds as if there’s nothing Apple can do wrong and proclaims everything they’ve done to be The Best Thing Ever. I first read his review on Snow Leopard and couldn’t believe the lack of any mention on the bad parts of it.

Oh that’s right…he makes money off of Apple doing well.

“Over the past few weeks, New York Times tech journalist David Pogue has been singled out as someone with a conflict of interest to the extent that he makes a living publishing books about tech software like OS X, while at the same time, he’s tasked with objectively reviewing them.”

We’ve all heard that people favor their own kind and discriminate against out-groups—but that’s a simplistic view of prejudice, says Amy Cuddy, a professor at Harvard Business School who studies how we judge others. In recent years she and psychologists Susan Fiske of Princeton University and Peter Glick of Lawrence University have developed a powerful new model. All over the world, it turns out, people judge others on two main qualities: warmth (whether they are friendly and well intentioned) and competence (whether they have the ability to deliver on those intentions). A growing number of psychological researchers are turning their focus to this rubric, refining it and looking for ways in which we can put this new understanding of first impressions to use.

When we meet a person, we immediately and often unconsciously assess him or her for both warmth and competence. Whereas we obviously admire and help people who are both warm and competent and feel and act contemptuously toward the cold and incompetent, we respond ambivalently toward the other blends. People who are judged as competent but cold—including those in stereotyped groups such as Jews, Asians and the wealthy—provoke envy and a desire to harm, as violence against these groups has often shown. And people usually seen as warm but incompetent, such as mothers and the elderly, elicit pity and benign neglect.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Sh*t!!Ben S. Bernanke won Senate approval for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman, as supporters who credited his actions to stem the financial crisis and recession overcame opponents saying he failed to prevent them.

The Senate voted 70 to 30 to confirm the 56-year-old former Princeton University professor, the most opposition since the chamber started confirming Fed chiefs in 1978.

arthur.i Says:

I am disappointed. I just don’t like the guy and would of loved to see him booted out.

I understand why he stays. To toss his ass out would be to admit that he failed to prevent and in fact by his misguided policies enabled the ‘crisis’. What was the government doing to protect society from Big Bad Bank Business during this same time frame? Nothing as well. They don’t want to face up to there own lies.

In November, we get one vote, one moment to express ourselves. I say, throw out all the bums.

Barry Ritholtz Says:

I thought of Bernanke as part of Hollywood Squares — I’ll takle Bernanke to block … Larry Summers from getting into that position . . .JasRas Says:

A maiden needs to be thrown into the volcano. We now know it’s not Bernanke… Geithner is malleable… Someone behind the scenes– Rubin or Summers? We can basically see in the last two weeks a tidal shift in POTUS position on banks. Volcker who was in the background with a muzzle has now been dusted off and brought into the sun. R or S will go… Geithner will say/do whatever he’s told to do. He’s a career guy, not a politician. I question whether he has any thoughts of his own at all. When he testifies, he has the physicality of a beat child… only one with years of subservience has that look.

Bottom line, someone will be going soon…

Someone needs to upgrade E Warren to a position closer to POTUS too. But that is another topic.

EAR Says:

Coming soon…

Scott Pelley interviews Geithner on 60 Minutes. Worked for BB.

He speaks Mandarin, he tells us how he worked at Gusanoz Mexican Restaurant to help pay for Dartmouth, they walk along the tree lined streets of Larchmont and shows us the house he couldn’t sell, he shows us he can juggle, he wears suspenders sans tie with his sleeves rolled up, we see he’s a human with feelings and an insatiable desire to help the American people.

Richard Black Quijote: In an attempt to leave some legacy from my having been here, I have added a new blog - totally dedicated to issues of Prison and Correctional Reform - which has been one of my areas of expertise throughout my life. If this interests you, or just as important, if you could refer this link to someone who is a decisionma...ker in politics or corrections, then you could help create a revolution in correctional thought. It will take 1/2 hour to read. Please do what you can - thanks....

Prison Possibilities prisonpossibilities.blogspot.com

Now retired after a career in corrections, I would like to leave behind a legacy - some ideas that I have that I have not seen expressed elsewhere. These are ways that we could actually transform the correctional system without adding more money. ...

Sam Champie: Outstanding! Your thinking is correct. Even uneducated outlaws are good at math .... work 40 hours a week at $9 an hour for $360 or 40 hours cooking meth and make $5000. True story from an operation recently busted here. The problem is these guys were both in the country illegal, so they will be extradited and no doubt return again. How can these guys ever be reformed?

Richard Black Quijote: Not easy. As Outlaws, they've done the math.

Sam Champie: The Nobel Prize winning question is, "how do we change the equation?" How can we take the glamor and profit out of crime? I wrote in one of my novels that a gang is a gathering of cowards. How can we help individual outlaws wanna bees find "courage" to pursue a life of individual achievement, yet be part of a team (law abiding society)? I think ... See Moremost outlaws are victims of their environment, but in some cases they are born that way. Reminds me of the old Merle Haggard song, Mama tried. At least Merle accepted responsibility and didn't blame his mother or others.Tue at 1:54pmRichard Black Quijote Sam, I don't know that we can take the profit out of crime. About the best that I can imagine would be a society in which people who were poorly socialized could, if they so chose, find ways to better themselves. But they would have to see bigger opportunities than slinging burgers at McDonalds. And although there are plenty of community ... See Morecolleges, it takes more socialization than most outlaws possess to even walk into a college. People who have never personally known anyone from the underclass would find it hard to believe how limited their horizons are.Tue at 5:06pmAlbert Marques Hey Richard, Do you guys have any plans to visit Cali in the future?Tue at 5:57pmRichard Black Quijote Hola Alberto, I wasn't really planning anything, but Manuel Agujetas is trying to convince me that we should all have a vacation in CA. I don't really have the $, so I'm listening to the plan. If we found enough house concerts and other events, then it would make sense. Do you have any ideas?

Arthur Imparato: Great blog Richard. Well thought out and thought provoking.

One idea as far as taking some of the financial incentive out of crime is to legalize all drugs, prostitution and any other crime that does not have a 'victim'. If you remove the drug money from your outlaws it would not be so glamorous to be stealing car radios and trying to sell them ... See Morefor 20 bucks on the street corner. If people want to smoke pot, snort coke or even shoot heroin - let them. They are going to do it anyway and at least the society can use the tax on drug revenue to help run government or better yet help the outlaws retrain for real work.

When you see the Bernie Madoffs of the world, raping and pillaging society and a level street criminals can't even imagine, it is easy to see why much of the youth of society don't believe in the system. There are many adults who don't make a very good example for the young.

I gave over 350 dollars to help you in getting elected. I had never given money to a politician before. I may never do it again.

You inspired me. I still like you. But I was shocked and dismayed by your continuation of the Reagan/Clinton/Bush policies as they relate to finance. Why would you keep yourself surrounded by the same policy wonks that drove our country to the edge of financial collapse. Now under your leadership, these financial Masters of the Universe have completed the largest theft of the American taxpayer ever. Ever. You failed us, to protect us from this tyranny. The vote in Massachusetts got your attention. Fine.

There is still time for you to redeem your Presidency. You are going to have to have a wholesale house cleaning of everyone in your administration associated and owned by The Financial Industrial Complex. Seriously, if you don't start firing these criminals, I will not vote for you again.

I will not donate anymore money to you. You chose to support the big money interests over mine. Ask Larry Summers to donate to your campaign...how much did big Banks pay him during the year you were running for election? Over five Million.

I still like you, and love the fact that by your very election you have change Americas politics and racial injustices for ever. That can't change. However, if you don't want to be another Jimmy Carter, one and done, you are going to have to go back to what you campaign on. CHANGE. And change does not mean doing the same crap that Bush did. It means change. Carter did amazing positive things for the world after he left office. You will too.

I leave you with this, stop playing the American people. We want things to be done differently and if you can't lead us in that direction then step aside. If you can, we are here able and willing to follow you to a greater America where Big Business does not own us, to an America where truth and honesty has been restored to our culture and an America where Washington is not owned lock stock and barrel by Wall Street.

I set out an urgent plan for restoring economic security for struggling middle class families. This is my top priority, but I cannot do it alone -- and that's why I'm writing to you now.

Tonight, I called on Congress to enact reforms and new initiatives to defend the middle class -- to create millions of new jobs, support small businesses, and drive up wages; to invest in the education of our children and the clean energy technology that must power our future; and to protect the economy from reckless Wall Street abuses.

And I made my position on health reform clear: We must not walk away. We are too close, and the stakes are too high for too many. I called on legislators of both parties to find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

I have no illusions -- there have been setbacks, and there will be more to come. The special interests who have shaped the status quo will keep fighting tooth and nail to preserve it.

So tonight, I'm asking you to join me in the work ahead. I need your voice. I need your passion. And I need your support.

Can you help fuel our fight for the middle class with a monthly donation of $15 or more?

https://donate.barackobama.com/StateOfTheUnion

We have just finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

Thank you for making it possible,

President Barack Obama

Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee -- 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.This email was sent to: arthurimparato@yahoo.com

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Why don't we just give all our money, property and possessions to Big Pharmaceutical, Big Medicine, Big Bank and Big Insurance. Then when they have everything we can just volunteer to be their slaves and then if we are good slaves maybe they will pay for our health care needs.

David Miller-Engel Please put this on your status if you or someone you know is gay. My wish for 2010 is that people will understand that being gay is not a disease--people who are gay are not looking for a cure but for ACCEPTANCE and EQUAL RIGHTS....93% won't Copy and Paste this. Will you make this your status for at least one hour?Mon at 2:32pm · Comment ·LikeUnlikeEllen Grinstein Perliter and 6 others like this.

H Winston Parker david homosexuality is an aboration against god....and all the "tollerance/acceptance" in the world will not change that....and i am not godless...not will i ever condone it

ANONYMOUS: Call me "old-fashioned," but it sure seems like a lot of people who can't spell their way out of a corner seem to be oh-so-sure that they know what God feels. Ignorant people will keep believing what they want to believe, regardless of what is right. And there are a lot of people out there who want to keep them ignorant.

H Winston Parker spelling...actually more typing could be better i'm sure/////ignorant ...not a chance....weather christian or jewish or muslim take your choice homosexuality is a sin...and you and all the liberals/progressives in the world will never change that...you can not obey the laws of god selectively and if you believe that can, you are indeed the ... one whoand don't to is ignorant....it is the written word of god michele not something i pulled out of a hat.....sometimes you can be so "smart" your "stupid".....and don't let your desire to be so tollerant, you condemn your soul to helll

ANONYMOUS: I guess we'll both find out after we die how God really feels about this issue. My guess is that God would be more offended by your hatred. In either case, neither of us is God's spokesman/spokeswoman. I am not arrogant enough to say that I am. I'd love to know, H Winston, where YOU are getting your info about God's laws. And I'm surprised that you don't even feel a need to capitalize God's name. I would say that shows a lack of respect.

H Winston Parker i never showed or wrote anything hateful that is a quantum leap on your part and is so typical of your ilk....futher i am no spokesperson for the good lord i refer to the holy bible of the christians, the old testiment of the jews and the koran of the muslim....and as for caps like i said i am not the best typer in the world and no disrespect was ...ever intended...but you missey may snipe at my typing skills (lack of lol) or my misspelling (being a college grad you'd think i'd do better...lol) the written word is the written word and you can not selectively obey the laws of god you find convienant and dismiss the ones you disagree with.....many a prison is overfilled eith people how act with the mentality you speak---although they break not only heavenly law they apply this mindset to man made law

ANONYMOUS: So, I take it that you keep kosher?

H Winston Parker i am not jewish...so no to your first question....and yes to your second-----i go to church on sundays and then usually assist a friend of mine who runs a soup kitchen for the poor----think the Good Lord would like that---just a feeling

ANONYMOUS: You may not be Jewish, but God's law states pretty clearly that there are certain dietary restrictions to be followed.

ANONYMOUS: If you refer to the Torah (OT), the New Testament, and the Koran, do you always just pick and choose what you want to accept as "God's laws"????

H Winston Parker no michele i try the best as HUMANLY possible to abide by those laws...am i perfect--- NO...not even close but i do believe that jesus died on a cross to save my soul and to the best of my abilty i try to live a life accordingly....cause in the end we will be judged according to our deeds....be well... be blessed... i see from your picture you have a lovely child---so i know the grace of god has already touched your life

ANONYMOUS: So, how do you know that homosexuality is against God's law?

ANONYMOUS: And if you're a Christian, can you show me where Jesus says that homosexuality is wrong? I haven't been able to find that....

H Winston Parker Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages ... homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it. In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known.

H Winston Parker Any evil condemned in Scripture cannot be honoring to God. Homosexual religious leaders attempt to smooth over the breaks and rough places with Christian terminology so that a euphoria predominates, but God is not in it. A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God's revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God ... condemns. "If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him" (I John 2:29). "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (II Timothy 2:19). Practicing homosexuals are engaged in a divinely forbidden evil.

ANONYMOUS: So, YOU choose to accept what Leviticus says about homosexuality. And YOU choose NOT to accept what Leviticus says about dietary restrictions. Tell me why YOU get to choose which parts of the Bible are important enough to follow??? Do I have to find citations, too?

H Winston Parker Romans 1:24-27; I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. If one takes these Scriptures seriously, homosexuality will be recognized as an evil. The Romans passage is unmistakably clear. Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of "the truth of God" (1:25). They refused "to retain God in their knowledge" (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul's day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God's commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it.

The philosophy of substituting God's Word with one's own reasoning commenced with Satan. He introduced it at the outset of the human race by suggesting to Eve that she ignore God's orders, assuring her that in so doing she would become like God with the power to discern good and evil (Genesis 3:1-5). That was Satan's big lie. Paul said that when any person rejects God's truth, his mind becomes "reprobate," meaning perverted, void of sound judgment. The perverted mind, having rejected God's truth, is not capable of discerning good and evil.

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behaviour of the homosexual is described as a "vile affection" (1:26). The Greek word translated "vile" (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonourable. The word "affection" in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The "vile affection" is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin....

ANONYMOUS: I can find a LOT of laws in Leviticus that I'm sure you and your fellow Christians don't follow and have absolutely no interest in following. I'm sure you can find them, too.

H Winston Parker want more....

H Winston Parker be well...live right.. honor God in all that you do

ANONYMOUS: And, H Winston, you still haven't found a single instance in your New Testament showing that Jesus was against homosexuality. Romans, Timothy, Paul, these were all after Jesus. In all the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, NO ONE has ever been able to show me one place where Jesus himself was quoted as saying anything at all about homosexuality.

ANONYMOUS: Yes, eventually, all the extremist Christians who want the rest of us to change all our civic laws to fit THEIR picture of God, eventually they back down, because they know that they are unable to explain why THEY get to pick and choose which of God's laws to follow. They love Leviticus until you happen to mention that there are a LOT of laws in there, and Christians just don't want to follow ALL of God's laws.

H Winston Parker On that you are wrong........ think i got the caps right......and believeing the basic precepts of our religion does not make me and others like me extremist....again you make those quantum leaps and wish to infer things that are just not so.....finally, be well ... cause it's back to work i go ....hope to here from you again soon

ANONYMOUS: H Winston, you still didn't answer my question about why you don't follow the other laws mentioned in Leviticus...

H Winston Parker "This is best answer I can give you.

First let me state that if you are a homosexual or enage in such behavior Jesus still loves you but dislikes your behavior and desires for you to change.

In Reponse to your question no specific sermon or story that Jesus may have given about specific homosexual behavior is found in Scripture. Nor does specifically use the word "homosexual" in scripture. But an argument from silence would be incorrect. The Bible does not record that Jesus ever mentioned rape, incest, pedophilia, or other blatant sins by name either. But just because Jesus does not mention them, does not imply that we should commit these offenses against God and each other. Jesus is very clear on the proper marriage relationship as mentioned in Matthew 19:4-5:...

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"Jesus was also very clear about the concept of sexual immorality been an evil thought from within one own heart in Mark 7:21: "For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery"Additional Jesus did not come to abolish the law but fufill it. While Jesus abolished the cermonal laws of the Old Testment the moral laws of the Old Testment remain applicable.The Bible also contains specific references to sexual imorality here are some examples in fact in the OT is was so serious it was a capital offence.Leviticus 18:22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.Leviticus 20:13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.I Cor 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"Jude 1:7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire"In fact there is at least 9 specific references in the Bible (at least 4 in the OT and 5 in the NT about homosexuality and none are in support of it.

If God the father, Jesus, and the holy spirt are all God never changes God therefore condones homesexual behavior. It is simply that logical. Even though Jesus did not specifically mention it by name while he walked on this earth it is still a sin."

H Winston Parker "'Two words come to mind when I think about Leviticus: holiness and worship. In those days the holy LORD was present in the midst of the people (Ex. 40:34, Lev. 1:1). The people of Israel must therefore properly address their sin and impurity and must strive for personal holiness. In order to approach God, worshipers must be wholehearted in their devotion (1:1–6:7; 22:17–30). The same applies to us today. We are called and commanded to worship the LORD. In order to do this we need to present ourselves appropriately. By the grace of God, through Jesus, are able to come before the LORD with confidence (Heb. 4:16, 10:19-22, 10:35). Yet, this does not mean that we don’t have to worry about our holiness! We, like in the old days, are still called to strive for personal holiness, to sanctify ourselves completely (1 Thess. 5:23), and in the truth (John 17:17), through the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:2), and have Jesus reign in our hearts as LORD (1 Peter 3:15).

The book of Leviticus gives us a picture of the seriousness of sanctification, the utter holiness of the LORD, the utter separation we have through sin, and the foreshadowing of Jesus in the midst of it all, as it is impossible from the human side to present ourselves clean before the LORD.

The book of Leviticus gives us these pictures as it discusses the need for offerings (ch. 1-7), the need for a priesthood (ch. 8-10), the need for explaining cleanness and uncleanness (ch. 11-15), the need for atonement (ch. 16), the need for blood to atone (ch. 17), and the need for holiness (ch. 18-22). This all builds up to Jesus in chapter 23 where the holy feasts are explained prophetically for the appointed times and the ultimate redemption (jubilee and the law of redemption). The book closes then off with a series of blessings and curses (ch. 26) and vows and dedications (ch. 27)....See More

In other words, the whole book is a picture the need for holiness as the LORD is holy, with the purpose of worshiping the LORD in all we do and are."

H Winston Parker and you sound like a christian hater....yes/no

ANONYMOUS: H Winston, my guess from reading what you've commented above is that your spelling and capitalization has vastly improved. Hallelujah! I'm guessing God must have been helping you out there (or maybe some internet site...).

In my humble opinion, it is a COPOUT to say that "Additional [sic] Jesus did not come to abolish the law but fufill it. While ...Jesus abolished the cermonal laws of the Old Testment the moral laws of the Old Testment remain applicable." Oh, I guess there was a typo there after all.

It is such a copout for Christians who get all holier-than-thou-I-know-exactly-what-is-important-to-God-and-you-don't to say that CERTAIN parts (the ones they WANT to follow) still apply, but CERTAIN OTHER parts (the ones they can't be bothered with) don't apply any more.

ANONYMOUS: If you want to read the Bible literally as God's word, with no intervening human pushing of certain text, then in order to not be a hypocrite, you need to take it ALL. Well, only if you want my respect for the integrity of your philosophy. But, my guess is you don't care about integrity. Most of you guys don't. You like to manipulate your "holy ...books" to say whatever you want them to say. And you allow yourselves to be manipulated by your religious leaders into denying people their civil rights. I bet your religious leaders were in favor of the anti-miscegenation laws thirty, forty years ago, too. They thought that was an "abomination against God," too.

H Winston Parker and this time you didn't answer my question...you sound like a christian hater

ANONYMOUS: I was interrupted by my REAL life, H Winston. I DO have more to do than try to educate the masses via Facebook.

I am not a Christian hater. I do not hate any group of people. I dislike hypocrisy. I dislike when people use their religion to deny other people their civil rights. If your church doesn't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry them ...in your church. If your church doesn't like gays, then don't accept them as members of your church. Very simple.

But don't try to deny other people their civil rights because you disagree with them. You aren't saying that people who have committed the other sins you mention (adultery, etc.) should not be allowed to marry. When you have a unified philosophy, I'll have more respect for it.

H Winston Parker give your ego a break... i certainly don't need to be educated by you...and again you make quantum leaps because i never said anything about denying anyone their civil liberties...all i stated was i am opposed to homosexuality....you assumed the the rest (which seems to be your exercise of choice)....maybe you should try being a student ...more and less trying to "educate" people with liberal bullshit---i will remind you the road to hell is paved with good intentions....and as far as respect goes yours means little to me as i can see clearly the path you walk...

ANONYMOUS: Let me remind you, H Winston, that YOU are the one who responded to David's original post, in which he was asking for acceptance and civil rights. You are the one who says that being "tollerant" [sic] is wrong. Unless I misunderstood you??

Oh, and let me remind you that YOU stated that "you can not obey the laws of god selectively" (in the 3rd ...comment box above) and "The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it" (I believe it's in the 14th comment box), yet you explicitly state later on that Christians don't have to follow all God's laws. "While Jesus abolished the cermonal [sic] laws of the Old Testment the moral laws of the Old Testment remain applicable." (8 boxes above this one) It's just very convenient that Christians have come to decide that certain laws (established by God) no longer apply to them.

H Winston Parker the only lack of tollerance seems to come from you....remember when you point one figer out at another three are pointing back at yourself....maybe you should take an honest look inward

ANONYMOUS: Are you referring to my "intolerance" (only one L) regarding bad spelling? And improper capitalization, including thinking that "God" should be capitalized? If so, granted, yes, I am slightly intolerant of people who can't be bothered to spell correctly. Well, at least when they are spelling things in their first language. But perhaps English isn't your first language, in which case "Bravo! You're doing a great job with it!"

ANONYMOUS: Oh... maybe you're referring to me insisting that you have some consistency in your insistence that we all follow God's laws. Oh right, only when they have to do with homosexuality. Because, we all know, God didn't actually MEAN that we should follow all those other laws....

H Winston Parker let it go and get a life....be well...be blessed...and save the venom for someone who wishes you ill----i'm not that person...lol :)

Connie Geocaris ANONYMOUS...YOU GO GIRL!!!!!

H Winston Parker connie wondering when the cheering section was going to show up....how that heck are youMon at 10:50pm H Winston Parker Homosexuality: The Christian PerspectiveBy: Lehman Strauss Download Word Doc See More Articles On: bible passages on homosexuality

Q. What is homosexuality?

Homosexuality is the manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex or the erotic activity with a member of the same sex. (The Greek word homos means the same). A lesbian is a female homosexual. More recently the term "gay" has come into popular use to refer to both sexes who are homosexuals...

Q. How does one determine if the practice of homosexuality is right or wrong?

That depends upon who is answering the question. The Christian point of view is based solely upon the Bible, the divinely inspired Word of God. A truly Christian standard of ethics is the conduct of divine revelation, not of statistical research nor of public opinion. For the Christian, the Bible is the final authority for both belief and behaviour.

Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God's Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Q. You said that sexua1 intercourse outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. How do you explain marriage ceremonies in which two persons of the same sex are united by an officiating clergyman or justice of the peace?

There are cases on record where a marriage license was issued to persons of the same sex. I recall one such incident in Phoenix, Arizona. A marriage license was issued in the Maricopa County clerk's office to two men 39 and 21 years old respectively. The two men are reported to have "married" in a private ceremony.

However, to call a union of two persons of the same sex a "marriage" is a misnomer. In the Bible, marriage is a divinely ordered institution designed to form a permanent union between one man and one woman for one purpose (among others) of procreating or propagating the human race. That was God's order in the first of such unions (Genesis 1:27, 28; 2:24; Matthew 19:5). If, in His original creation of humans, God had created two persons of the same sex, there would not be a human race in existence today. The whole idea of two persons of the same sex marrying is absurd, unsound, ridiculously unreasonable, stupid. A clergyman might bless a homosexual marriage but God won't.

Q. A Jesuit Priest, John J. McNeill, reportedly said in a conference (Christianity Today, June 3, 1977), "There is no clear condemnation of homosexual activity to be found anywhere in the Bible." How does a church leader arrive at such a conclusion?

This particular Jesuit priest, like some other supposedly Christian theologians, have totally ignored the Scriptures as the guidelines for Christian behaviour in regard to homosexuality. McNeill does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, but for a small segment of priests who, having vowed themselves to celibacy, that is, to abstain from marriage and sexual intercourse, have found sexual gratification in homosexual acts.

However, religious sex perverts are plentiful among protestants. Protestant leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have gradually eased away from the Scriptures. In England men like Bishop John Robinson, in his book Honest to God made a play on the term "The New Morality," which in reality was a plea to open the door to immorality making it respectable and thus acceptable. The Bishop went so far as to describe the unscriptural adulterous relationship as "a kind of holy communion." This modern concept of Christian ethics rejects totally the precepts laid down by God in His Word. It is blasphemous and atheistic.

Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, "Gay and Christian." But the two terms, "gay" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive, incompatible, incongruous.

Representing the women at that retreat, Nancy Krody a lesbian, spoke on "The Lesbian Christian Experience." Here again is a misnomer. A practicing Christian, from the biblical viewpoint, will not be a practicing homosexual. Of course, I make the distinction between a professing Christian and a practicing Christian.

Suzen Sarko Absolutey!!!

David Miller-Engel Winston the only abomination is your "Christian Attitude" and holier than thou pronouncements on the bible. You cannot have it both ways. either follow all the laws or keep quiet about being selective. You have and always will be on the losing end of that arguement so you should just pipe down with your self righteous views. The inconsistency of ...your views should be more troublesome to you than someone elese sexuality. I for one have no problem being selective and do not feel the need to proclaim my morality based on my selectivety. Food for thought although in my many discussion with born agains I have found them starved for ideas

David Miller-Engel As the final word Winston, My nephew my cousins and my friends are not or ever will be abominations no matter how hard you try to make them.. You should find a little more of the live and let live parts of the bible and Christian Judeo ethic to believe in ...

Connie Geocaris very reasonable, david!!!

David Miller-Engel why thank you Connie...

Sarah Gee go david go! this is quite a thread!

ANONYMOUS: I can't resist from one last post tonight:

H Winston, while I DO appreciate that you cited your source (that's the academic nerd in me), it doesn't take much work to copy and paste from someone else's ideas. And an overly long comment like that is just meant to glaze everyone's eyes over.

If you really want to engage anyone in a conversation, do your research, cite it, and put the main points in your own words, with some interesting analysis and thought of your own. Didn't they teach that to you in your college (or high school)? Otherwise, just give us a link to the place on the web that you get your info, and we can be big boys and girls and look it up....

OK, I'm off to bed, so don't take it as a personal affront if I don't respond to you, HW; it's not a sign of hatred towards you, it's just that I have a few other things to do in my life.

ANONYMOUS: And, David, I'm astonished to find such a long string of comments from what seemed like such a mundane status post on your end. I keep seeing these messages to change one's status for a few hours... I never expected so much typing practice to come of it. And me with a messed-up W!!

H Winston Parker final word from me ...may god's blessing be the light that shines upon your lives

Arthur Imparato: I don't want to be labeled, because being gay or black or a rapper or a redneck or alternative has only separated us, and those are labels previous generations have come up with, not us. We need to embrace our differences, not focus on them.

When you are dead, no one will give a shit about what it is you think is real. Here is what is real. LOVE.

Arthur Imparato Romantic love is mental illness. But it's a pleasurable one. It's a drug. It distorts reality, and that's the point of it. It would be impossible to fall in love with someone that you really saw.

7 hours ago · Ivana Belan I see why you would say that..and I must agree, partly though..BUT in time you do start to see people as they really are...and just sometimes you love them even for their flaws..

5 hours ago · Richard Black Quijote The best definition of love that I can remember is: Love is a willingness to have another be exactly as they are and exactly as they are not. It kind of resonated with me, but then I am a love junkie.about an hour ago ·

Sylvia Walters How jaded we have become! Romantic Love is beautiful, chilling, awe-inspiring, wars were fought, murders have been committed, music written, lives changed, all in the name of Love. The thrill of the touch of the one you desire, a kiss, catching them staring at you, makes my heart soar. Sure, it may not last forever but it does exist, it can be a emotional mood that passes like happiness or sadness but....ahhh...while it is happening, it is such a wonderful thing!about an hour ago ·

Arthur Imparato Tru Dat.

There is an interesting and book called "We" by Robert A Johnson. You can read some of it for free at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/We-Understanding-Psychology-Romantic-Love/dp/0062504363/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264599843&sr=1-4... See More

To be more specific, to be "in love" is different then loving...the in love state of mind is considered, from a psychological point of view to be a mild form of psychosis. To love some one is not. To be 'in love' with someone is so exhilarating and exciting Because you are "out of your mind" and experiencing an altered state of perception and a heightened sensitivity.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

And then, there's another kind of love: the cruelest kind. The one that almost kills its victims. It's called unrequited love. On that I am an expert. Most love stories are about people who fall in love with each other. But what about the rest of us? What about our stories, those of us who fall in love alone? We are the victims of the one-sided affair. We are the cursed of the loved ones. We are the unloved ones, the walking wounded. The handicapped without the advantage of a great parking space!

We owe to the Middle Ages the two worst inventions of humanity - romantic love and gunpowder. Love that we can not have is the one that lasts the longest, hurts the deepest and feels the strongest...Romantic love is mental illness. But it's a pleasurable one. It's a drug. It distorts reality, and that's the point of it. It would be impossible to fall in love with someone that you really saw.

I just read a research report from Dick Bove of Rochdale Securities that made me actually laugh out loud. It has the most irony impaired title I have ever read — the bold, all caps, title Bove penned was:

WILL IGNORANCE, DECEIT, AND RAGE DESTROY THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM?

Someone should tell the boy its too late for “ignorance, deceit and rage,” as the financial sector has already destroyed financial system . . .

I just have to ask: WTF do these people get their ginormous cojones from? Do they have a tailor on call to let out their inseam to make room for their balls ? Talk about unmitigated gall — a research analyst from Wall Street is upset over anger destroying the financial system. It would be funny if it wasn’t so god-damned pathetic . . .(by Barry Rithholtz - http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/ )

I have a Russian friend who arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa a couple of years before the Berlin Wall came down. She struggled for a few years as an illegal alien, but with hard work and some luck, overtime she found success in her life. She is now an American citizen. She likes to rant about how:

"back then in the Soviet Union our lives were saturated by propaganda. Here in America there is now even more propaganda then what I experienced in the 80s in Moscow. The difference? Back then, we new we were being lied to, and that gave us some power. But here I see intelligent successful educated people not being able to see the lies, the half truths, the twisting of facts and utter broadcasts of falsehoods."

Maybe it is time for all Americans to read or re-read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I have people I know calling me for financial advise. I have no experience in this area. They figure sense I was somewhat successful and retired early that I must know something about money. I don't. As an amateur investor yes, as someone to give another advise no. Most of their money that is in the equities market is in their retirement accounts. They feel better that it has come back from the death pit of March 09 but they are afraid it may be headed back there. I tell them that I have no idea what will happen. To me it feels like a casino in Las Vegas, you know the house is going to win, you may or may not. Every time I say "what does your broker/financial service provider have to say about this their answer, and I am paraphrasing, is:

"I wouldn't trust that jerk off with an old chewed piece of gum"

I say, then why are you with him/her? Always the same answer - "I don't know"

IMO, if this market starts to meaningfully retract, there are a lot of average middle to upper-middle class citizens who collectively have hundreds of billions in the market through their retirement accounts and I don't believe they have any interest nor stomach in going on the downside ride of this financial Ponzi scheme. That could really accelerate a trend.

Here in Europe where I spend most of my time, people can't even grasp the concept that in the U.S. the people have to rely on the stock market to secure their retirement. They think I am joking. And when I say no, no really, I am not kidding you, they look at me and say "what is wrong with your country?".

IGNORANCE, DECEIT, and RAGE will destroy the financial system. However it is The Masters Of The Universe and our Overlords of Wall Street (Deceit Street?) who posses this ignorance in abundance and who use the mighty sword of deceit against the masses and who carry a hateful self-centered rage towards moral and ethical standards of decent humane human society.